PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

OF SEISMIC SURVEYING FOR OIL AND GAS IN AND

NEAR THE BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE ON THE

FLORIDA PANTHER

OCTOBER 2018

Submitted to:

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

1152 15TH STREET NW, SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20005

Prepared by:

Quest Ecology Inc. 735 Lakeview Drive Wimauma, FL 33598

813.642.0799

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.   Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 1 

II.   Background ...................................................................................................................... 2 

III.   Habitat Fragmentation and Degradation within the Preserve .......................................... 3 

IV.   Avoidance, Vehicular Mortalities, and Destruction of Nearby Habitat ............................ 4 

V.   Denning ............................................................................................................................ 6 

VI.   Effects on Panther Prey Species ....................................................................................... 7 

VII.   Panther Focus Area and Panther Habitat Units (PHUs) ................................................... 8 

VIII.   Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 10 

FIGURES

Figure 1 Florida Panther Occurrence Records

Figure 2 Florida Panther Focus Areas

APPENDIX

Appendix A Photo Documentation of Seismic Survey Paths

 1  

I. Executive Summary

Endangered Florida panther habitat is currently under threat by oil exploration and other

development in and near the Florida Everglades. The Burnett Oil Company, Inc. has begun its first

phase of oil exploration within 110-square miles of the Big Cypress National Preserve (hereinafter,

“Big Cypress” or “Preserve”) using 33-ton “vibroseis” vehicles to generate seismic signals to map oil

and gas beneath the surface. This seismic exploration is negatively affecting “primary zone” habitats,

which are habitats essential for the survival of the endangered Florida panther. Impacts primarily

resulted from vibroseis vehicles and other vehicles driving off-road through wetlands, damaging

mature cypress trees and other vegetation, causing extensive soil rutting and compaction, leading to

changes to localized hydrology. Seismic survey crews also cut down cypress trees in the paths of the

vibroseis vehicles. Seismic survey activities are impacting the habitat quality for panthers by

fragmenting and degrading natural plant compositions, in turn making the impacted areas less suitable

for habitation. Panther dens are not being adequately mapped within the seismic survey area and any

dens which have been identified do not have adequate protection based on the recommended amount of

buffer area between seismic survey activities and dens. Additionally, the potential for the dispersal of

and impacts to the panther’s prey species may reduce the amount of food available to panthers.

Avoidance of the seismic survey area in Big Cypress by panthers may result in more frequent crossings

of roads, putting panthers at increased risk for death or injury by vehicular collision. Impacts to panther

habitat caused by the oil exploration have not been restored or mitigated as of the date of this report.

Furthermore, federal and state agencies have not analyzed the cumulative effects of other

development projects taking place in nearby panther habitat along with the impacts caused by the

ongoing oil exploration in Big Cypress. These cumulative impacts include another seismic survey

proposed for private and state lands containing panther habitat located immediately to the north of Big

Cypress, including parts of the Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area. The impacts of

development activities taking place in and near Big Cypress have not been analyzed, and, thus, the full

nature and extent of the impacts of the oil exploration and surrounding development on Florida

panthers and their habitats is unknown and should be evaluated.

 2  

II. Background

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) originally listed the Florida panther (Puma

concolor coryi) as an endangered species in 1967 and remains one of the most endangered mammals in

the eastern United States, with an estimated population of 120 to 230 individuals.1 Florida panthers

have faced an uphill battle after their numbers declined to as few as 20 to 30 individuals in the 1970s

and early 1980s.2 USFWS published the first version of the Florida Panther Recovery Plan in 1981 and

has since revised it three times, the last time in 2008.3 This plan sets forth goals to maintain, restore,

and expand the panther population and its habitat, and expand the breeding population in South

Florida.4 Yet there are numerous threats to its survival, including vehicular collisions, inbreeding,

increased competition for food and territory, and habitat loss due to mining, agriculture, residential

development, and oil and gas activities, including in Big Cypress.5 The Florida Panther Recovery Plan

states that the federal government should only consider reclassifying this species to a “threatened”

status if two viable populations of at least 240 adults and sub-adults are sustained for at least 12 years,

and should only consider “delisting” if three viable populations of at least 240 adults and sub-adults are

sustained for at least 12 years, along with other factors related to habitat and corridor connections.6 The

current population estimate of 120 to 230 Florida panthers is not enough to even constitute one viable

population.

The Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan identifies about 926,000 acres of habitat

considered essential to maintaining a minimum viable population of panthers in South Florida. About

582,000 of these acres are located within Big Cypress, representing approximately 63 percent of the

designated essential habitat.7 See Figure 1 for a map of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission (FWC) panther occurrence data points in and around Big Cypress. The Burnett Oil

Company, Inc. has targeted panther habitat in the Preserve for new oil exploration. While some oil

development has taken place in discrete portions of the Preserve, developers have targeted new areas

1 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Determining the Size of the Florida Panther Population (2017), http://myfwc.com/media/4156723/DeterminingPantherPopulation2017.pdf. 2 Id. at 1. 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther Recovery Plan, Third Revision at I (2008), https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Panther%20Recovery%20Plan.pdf. 4 Id. at ix. 5 Id. at viii. 6 Id. at x. 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan: South Florida Population (1993), http://www.mountainlion.org/us/fl/FL-A-USFWS-Logan-et-al-1993-Florida-Panther-Habitat-Preservation-Plan-South-Florida-Population.pdf.

 3  

for exploration. The first phase of four planned phases of exploration began in 2017 using 33-ton

vibroseis vehicles to generate seismic signals to map the oil and gas beneath the surface. The vibroseis

vehicles are accompanied by other off-road vehicles, helicopters and survey crews.8 These vehicles

drive off-road through wetlands in the Preserve, damaging mature cypress trees and other vegetation,

causing extensive soil rutting and compaction, and changes in hydrology.9,10 See Appendix A for

photographs of this damage. These impacts will be difficult, if not impossible, to restore. Impacts are

likely to affect Florida panther movements, as panthers will likely avoid the impacted areas.

III. Habitat Fragmentation and Degradation within the Preserve

Seismic survey activities in Big Cypress are impacting the habitat quality for Florida panthers

and other wildlife by fragmenting and degrading natural plant compositions in cypress swamps. Paths

created by seismic surveys fragment forests, resulting in decreasing the size and increasing the number

of forest patches.11 Florida panthers prefer to live in contiguous areas of undeveloped land, especially

forested cover types such as cypress swamps, which are one of the most preferred land cover types of

panthers.12 Plant community compositions are altered along seismic survey lines,13 and off-road

vehicles can be dispersers of invasive plant species.14 Introduction of invasive plants can result in

monocultures that outcompete native plants and decrease overall diversity, resulting in less desirable

forage and cover for panthers and prey. There is also a slow recovery period (40+ years) of vegetation

regrowth after seismic surveys, leading to long-term fragmentation and changes in movement patterns

8 Burnett Oil Co., Inc. et al., Nobles Grade 3-D Seismic Survey, Big Cypress National Preserve and Big Cypress National Preserve Addition Plan of Operations (Dec. 2014), http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=352&projectID=53498&documentID=66527. 9 National Park Service, Revised Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Oil and Gas Plan of Operation: Nobles Grade 3-D Seismic Survey within Big Cypress National Preserve proposed by Burnett Oil Company, Inc. (2016) (hereinafter, “Revised EA”), https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=352&projectID=53498&documentID=71803. 10 Quest Ecology. Seismic Survey Inspection Report Big Cypress National Preserve (May 2018), https://assets.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/seismic-survey-inspection-big-cypress-20180531.pdf?_ga=2.64474735.1368414805.1534966676-1336211018.1533580820. 11 Pattison, Colin A., et al. “The landscape impact of linear seismic clearings for oil and gas development in boreal forest.” Northwest Science 90.3 (2016): 340-354. 12 Kautz, R., et al. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130:118–133. 13 Kemper, J. Todd, and S. Ellen Macdonald. “Directional change in upland tundra plant communities 20‐30 years after seismic exploration in the Canadian low‐arctic.” Journal of Vegetation Science 20.3 (2009): 557-567. 14 Von Der Lippe, M. and Kowarik, I. 2007, Long‐Distance Dispersal of Plants by Vehicles as a Driver of Plant Invasions. Conservation Biology, 21: 986-996. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00722.x.

 4  

and prey locating techniques in large mammals.15

Observations made following seismic survey activities in Big Cypress in 2017 revealed that

cypress trees were cut down to make way for the vibroseis vehicles. The vehicles themselves damaged

cypress trees and ran over and flattened cypress trees and other vegetation. Additionally, the large

weight of the vibroseis vehicles rutted and compacted soils, leading to altered hydrology and plant

compositions.16 See Appendix A. Yet the USFWS assumed in its concurrence letter for Burnett Oil

Company’s seismic survey that “…[t]he project will result in limited impacts to vegetation during the

establishment of transect line and buggy access paths, and it will not result in permanent habitat loss for

the panther.”17 However, observations made after the seismic survey activities commenced have shown

that the impacts to vegetation were not “limited” and it is likely that cypress forests in the Preserve will

suffer long-term fragmentation by the seismic survey lines created, in turn making the habitat less

optimal for Florida panthers and their prey species.

IV. Avoidance, Vehicular Mortalities, and Destruction of Nearby Habitat

In the revised environmental assessment for the Phase I seismic survey in Big Cypress, the

National Park Service (NPS) assumed that Florida panthers would display avoidance behaviors when in

the vicinity of seismic survey activities, arguing that since panthers are nocturnal and survey activities

occur during the day, seismic operations would not disturb them.18 However, the NPS failed to provide

any scientific or technical analysis determining the distances at which Florida panthers could hear the

noise caused by vibroseis vehicles and other off-road vehicles and helicopters, or feel the seismic

vibrations generated by the vibroseis vehicles.

Avoidance of the seismic survey area may result in panthers crossing roads more frequently,

putting them at increased risk for death or injury by vehicular collision. Vehicular collisions are a

leading cause of panther deaths, with 24 vehicle-caused mortalities since the beginning of 2018 as of

15 Dabros, A., et al. “Seismic lines in the boreal and arctic ecosystems of North America: environmental impacts, challenges, and opportunities.” Environmental Reviews, 26.2 (2018): 214-229. 16 Quest Ecology, Seismic Survey Inspection Report Big Cypress National Preserve (May 2018), https://assets.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/seismic-survey-inspection-big-cypress-20180531.pdf?_ga=2.64474735.1368414805.1534966676-1336211018.1533580820. 17 Revised EA, supra note 9 at Appendix C (Letter of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Big Cypress National Preserve re: Burnett Oil Co. Inc., Nobles Grade 3-D Seismic Survey (Feb. 25, 2015). 18 Id. at 85. 

 5  

October 10, 2018.19 While the NPS asserted that access points to the seismic survey area would be

secured to prevent panthers from breaching Interstate 75 (I-75) wildlife fencing,20 it failed to provide an

analysis of the increased motor vehicle and off-road vehicle traffic induced by the oil exploration on

roads and trails both within and located adjacent to the Preserve. The NPS also failed to propose or

analyze any additional measures that could be taken in order to prevent panthers from crossing roads

other than I-75, which are located adjacent to or within the Preserve, such as US-41 (Tamiami Trail),

State Road 29 (an especially deadly road for panthers), and internal roads in the Preserve, which

panthers are likely to cross to avoid disturbance related to the seismic survey activities.

Additionally, the NPS has not adequately considered the cumulative effects of other

development projects in nearby panther habitat on panthers and their habitats, which will no longer be

available for use by panthers for retreat and solitude. Currently, at least ten major development projects

are being proposed or are being constructed in nearby panther habitat, including the Florida Power and

Light Hendry Clean Energy Center, the widening of State Road 82, State Road 29 and Snake Road, the

Immokalee Sand Mine, and five large residential communities (Rural Lands West, WildBlue,

Corkscrew Farms, Babcock Ranch, and Corkscrew Crossing). Further, the Eastern Collier County

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan proposes to allow 45,000 acres of mining and urban

development within the Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Area.21

Adjacent to the Preserve, Tocala, LLC, has applied to the state to explore for oil on private lands

and on parts of the state-managed Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area. Tocala, LLC

proposes to use explosives to generate seismic signals.22 This proposed seismic survey is located only

3.7 miles north of the seismic survey area in Big Cypress in known panther habitat. Nonetheless, the

NPS failed to evaluate the cumulative impacts of both of these seismic surveys on the Florida panther

in its environmental analysis of Burnett Oil Company’s seismic activities, stating “[t]he Tocala survey

is miles from the Preserve, is on privately owned ranchland, has no effects on Preserve resources, and

19 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Panther Pulse (2018), http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/managed/panther/pulse/ (last visited October 15, 2018). 20 Revised EA, supra note 9 at 88. 21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (2016), http://easterncollierhcpeis.com/.  22 Tocala, LLC, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Application for Permit to Perform Geophysical Exploration Permit No. G-174-17 (2017), which can be viewed at: https://floridadep.gov/water/oil-gas/content/current-applications.  

 6  

thus should not be included in the cumulative impacts analysis.”23 However, the panthers documented

in the seismic survey area proposed by Tocala, LLC, are from the same population, and it is likely that

this additional seismic survey will further disrupt panther movements and degrade its habitat.

V. Denning

In the revised environmental assessment for the first phase of oil exploration in Big Cypress, the

NPS acknowledges that the seismic survey could have an effect on Florida panther behavior and

denning but claim mortality or injury would be highly unlikely to occur.24 The NPS fails to analyze

whether juvenile panther mortality would occur due to den abandonment. Instead, it asserts that female

panthers have not been observed to abandon dens after visits from researchers,25 but make no mention

of whether this theory also applies to large scale disturbances involving the operations of vibroseis

vehicles and other off-road vehicles, and helicopters, in the vicinity of dens. Notably, panther kittens

have spotted coats for camouflage,26 so they would be difficult to see during seismic survey operations.

The NPS acknowledges that the seismic survey activities overlap with the panther’s denning period in

late spring,27 but fail to evaluate any alternative to conducting seismic survey activities within this

timeframe. During the denning period the home range of mother panthers is restricted greatly by their

need to protect and to nurse their kittens.28 However, NPS failed to analyze the impacts associated with

mothers abandoning their dens in response to seismic survey activities.

The NPS claims in the revised environmental assessment for the first phase of oil exploration in

Big Cypress that, “since the survey activities would not take place within impenetrable vegetation,

Florida panther dens would not be expected to be directly impacted.”29 Based on the analyses of the

damage caused by the Burnett Oil Company’s seismic survey activities conducted thus far, seismic

survey crews cut down vegetation within the chosen paths of the vibroseis vehicles. Thus, panther dens

could be destroyed or driven over by off-road vehicles if they are not identified in advance of seismic

23 Revised EA, supra note 9 at Selected Comments and NPS Responses on the Nobles Grade 3-D Seismic Survey EA, Comment Number 6. 24 Id. at 87. 25 Id. 26 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi). (2018). https://www.fws.gov/refuge/florida_panther/wah/panther.html. 27 Revised EA, supra note 9 at 87. 28 S. Maehr, David & Darrell Land, E & C. Roof, Jayde & Mccown, J. (1989). Early Maternal Behavior in the Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi). American Midland Naturalist. 122. 34. 10.2307/2425680. 29 Revised EA, supra note 9 at 87. 

 7  

survey activities within chosen seismic survey lines. The NPS goes on to state that “meetings would be

held with NPS and FWC panther experts to determine potential denning areas within the vicinity of the

survey area during the survey operations. BOCI [Burnett Oil Company] or designated representatives

would contact NPS and FWC biologists regarding the monitoring of radio-instrumented panthers in and

around the survey area. If monitoring suggests panthers are denning in or near the survey routes,

appropriate actions would be taken as recommended by NPS and FWC staff.”30 However, not all

panthers in the Preserve wear radio collars, thus, it is likely that seismic survey crews will not know the

locations of all panther dens, specifically those of uncollared panthers, in or near the Phase I seismic

survey area in advance of conducting seismic survey-related activities. Further, NPS only requires a

panther den buffer between dens and seismic survey activities of approximately 100-200 meters.31

However, another study recommended that a buffer of approximately 1 kilometer should be established

for known panther dens in order to decrease the likelihood of den or litter abandonment.32 It is unclear

why NPS did not require the Burnett Oil Company to implement the more protective buffer.

VI. Effects on Panther Prey Species

The NPS failed to evaluate how seismic surveys affect panther prey species, and in turn food

availability for Florida panthers. A study on the effects of seismic surveys on pygmy rabbits in Utah

found that burrow entrances collapsed if they were directly hit by the tire or shaker pad of a vibroseis

truck, and burrow entrance heights were reduced due to sloughing.33 Similarly, rabbits and other

mammals, including burrowing mammals such as the armadillo, are known prey items of Florida

panthers and could be adversely affected by vibroseis vehicles. Other panther prey species, like the

white-tailed deer, may also be affected by the human presence and loud activities associated with

seismic survey vehicles and regular helicopter operations.34 Damaging burrows and scaring off prey

species will reduce the amount of food available to the panthers, making areas impacted by seismic

survey activities less suitable for panther habitation.

30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Stephen E. Davis III, et al., “Oil and Gas Impacts in the Big Cypress Ecosystem: An Analysis of Impacts Associated with Proposed Activities in the Nobles Grade Area” (2010) at 157, https://www.evergladesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/12/Report-Oil-Gas-Impacts-Reduced.pdf. 33 Wilson, Tammy L. “Effects of seismic exploration on pygmy rabbits.” Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 17 (2011): 55. 34 Stankowich, T. Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: a review and meta-analysis. (2008) Biol. Conserv. 141, 2159–2173. 

 8  

VII. Panther Focus Area and Panther Habitat Units (PHUs)

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities that “take” or negatively

impact panthers. For example, impacts to panthers or their habitat that affect their essential behaviors

and abilities to hunt, breed, or find shelter are prohibited absent a permit authorizing such take. The

USFWS developed the Panther Habitat Assessment Method to measure the ecological value of panther

habitat within the Panther Focus Area and uses it to determine how much compensation is required for

habitat loss in this area. The Panther Focus Area consists of land important to the Florida panther,

including the primary, secondary and dispersal zones. These zones are used as indicators of the level

and type of panther usage in a particular location. Big Cypress is located in the panther’s primary zone,

which is defined as “all lands essential for the survival of the Florida panther in the wild.”35 See Figure

2 for a map of USFWS Florida Panther Focus Areas.

USFWS uses Panther Habitat Units (PHUs) to quantify the functional value of specific areas

within the Panther Focus Area. When panther habitat in the Panther Focus Area is destroyed, habitat

elsewhere in the Panther Focus Area must be permanently protected as mitigation to compensate for the

loss of habitat. This habitat must have an equal PHU value as the habitat that was destroyed.36 PHUs

can be secured by permanently protecting lands containing panther habitat and performing land

management and restoration activities. PHUs can also be purchased from Habitat Conservation Banks,

which are privately owned and protect, restore, and manage strategically important Florida panther

habitat in perpetuity.37 There are currently three Habitat Conservation Banks with PHUs for purchase:

Florida Panther Conservation Bank I, Florida Panther Conservation Bank II, and Panther Passage

Conservation Bank.

In Quest Ecology’s May 2018 Seismic Survey Inspection Report for Phase I seismic activities

in Big Cypress, it was estimated that at least 225,896 linear feet (42.8 miles) of seismic survey lines

were created in the Preserve by the Burnett Oil Company, as of May 27, 2017. It is important to note

that this impact assessment is conservative, and the impacts have increased since 2017 because the

Burnett Oil Company resumed seismic exploration in Big Cypress in 2018. The oil company has also

35 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Panther Habitat Zones (2018), http://geodata.myfwc.com/datasets/panther-habitat-zones-florida. 36 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology (2012), https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MammalsPDFs/20120924_Panther%20Habitat%20Assessment%20Method_Appendix.pdf. 37 University of Florida. Government Efforts to Protect Habitat for the Florida Panther on Private Lands (2016), http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw413.  

 9  

expressed interest in continuing seismic exploration of Phase I during the upcoming 2018-2019 dry

season. Therefore, the full nature and extent of the impacts on panther habitat in Big Cypress is

unknown.

Based on conservative estimates of the damage caused by the 2017 seismic survey activities,

using the typical minimum seismic survey line widths of 12 and 15 feet measured by Quest Ecology in

the Preserve, the minimum area impacted from the Burnett Oil Company’s seismic survey lines as of

May 2017 is at least 62.2 acres. This minimum impact acreage is not all-inclusive because it does not

account for areas where seismic survey lines were greater than 15 feet wide. Seismic survey lines

greater than 15 feet wide were occasionally observed in Big Cypress and appeared to occur as a result

of vibroseis vehicles getting stuck in soft wetland soils and turning around. Most of these impacts

occurred in previously roadless areas through high quality wet prairie and dwarf cypress strand wetland

communities. See Appendix A.

Quest Ecology calculated the number of PHUs needed to compensate for the estimated 62.2

acres of primary zone panther habitat impacted by the Burnett Oil Company’s seismic activities in the

Preserve as of May 27, 2017. This estimate is conservative, as the number of PHUs required to

compensate for the loss of panther habitat will be higher since additional seismic surveying impacts

occurred in Big Cypress in 2018 and are likely to continue into 2019. PHUs are calculated based on

habitat suitability values, which are used as a numerical indicator of a habitat’s importance to panthers.

These values range between 0 and 10, with higher habitat suitability values indicating higher likelihood

of use by panthers. To calculate the PHUs within the impact areas before the seismic survey activities

began, the 62.2 acres of seismic survey impacts was multiplied by 9.2 (the habitat suitability value for

cypress swamp), which resulted in 572.2 PHUs. To calculate the PHUs within the impact areas after the

seismic activities began, the 62.2 acres of seismic survey impacts was multiplied by 3 (the habitat

suitability value for disturbed lands), which resulted in 186.6 PHUs. To calculate the loss of PHUs due

to seismic survey activities, the post-survey PHUs (186.6) was subtracted from the pre-survey PHUs

(572.2), resulting in a loss of 385.6 PHUs. Next, this value (385.6 PHUs) was multiplied by the

USFWS defined base ratio (2.5), which accounts for the amount of primary zone equivalent habitat that

must be protected to offset the ongoing loss of panther habitat in the Preserve from seismic activities,

which resulted in 964 PHUs. This means that the Burnett Oil Company must provide compensation for

at least 964 PHUs to compensate for impacts to primary zone panther habitat from its 2017 seismic

survey activities. This compensation can be fulfilled by purchasing PHUs from a Habitat Conservation

 10  

Bank or generating the required PHUs by permanently conserving lands containing Florida panther

habitat.

In the event compensation is proposed in the Florida panther’s secondary zone habitat instead of

primary zone habitat, a “Landscape Compensation Multiplier” must be applied. Since lands in the

primary zone are more important to panthers than the secondary zone, more land must be protected in

the secondary zone to compensate for impacts to panther habitat in the primary zone. In this case, 964

PHUs is multiplied by a landscape compensation multiplier of 1.45 to get 1,397.8 PHUs. As described

above, the Burnett Oil Company must permanently preserve adequate panther habitat to generate the

needed PHUs or purchase PHUs from a Habitat Conservation Bank to compensate for losses to panther

habitat in Big Cypress. To date, Quest Ecology has not been provided with any proposed PHU

assessments to compensate for or mitigate the impacts to Florida panther habitat caused by Phase I of

the Burnett Oil Company’s oil exploration in Big Cypress.

VIII. Conclusion

The Phase I seismic survey impacts in the Preserve documented in this report and Quest

Ecology’s May 2018 report reveal that the Burnett Oil Company destroyed primary zone Florida

panther habitat. Further, the NPS and USFWS underestimated the nature and extent of anticipated

impacts to panthers and their habitat from the Burnett Oil Company’s Phase I seismic survey activities

and failed to consider the cumulative impacts of these seismic survey activities together with the

impacts of another nearby seismic survey proposal and surrounding development of panther habitat.

Further, the Burnett Oil Company failed to restore the impacts to panther habitat in Big Cypress, and to

date, has not provided compensation or mitigation for this damage by providing compensatory PHUs.

The Burnett Oil Company must fully restore the damage it caused to panther habitat in the

Preserve and demonstrate its ability to achieve defined restoration success criteria for affected panther

habitat. Additionally, NPS and USFWS must reinitiate consultation on Phase I of the oil exploration

and compel the Burnett Oil Company to provide compensation or mitigation for the loss in primary

zone panther habitat, which could include the purchase of PHUs from a Habitat Conservation Bank or

generating the required PHUs by permanently conserving lands containing Florida panther habitat.

Finally, the NPS should not allow any additional seismic activities and undertake a supplemental

review of the effectiveness and adequacy of the Minimization and Mitigation Measures to protect

 11  

Florida panthers and other Preserve resources from seismic survey activities to prevent further damage

to panther habitat in the Preserve.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Path

(E:\M

appin

g\Burn

ett O

il in B

ig Cy

press

Pres

erve\M

aps\F

ig 1 P

anthe

r Occ

urenc

es.m

xd) B

y: AQ

Date

: 10/4

/2018

Figure 1 - Florida Panther Occurrence RecordsNobles Grade 3-D Seismic Survey (Burnett Oil Co., Inc.)

Natural Resources Defense CouncilBig Cypress National Preserve, Florida

.0 3Miles

Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Legend!( Human-Panther Interaction!( Panther Mortality! Panther Telemetry Data Point

Approx. Phase I Seismic Survey BoundaryBig Cypress National Preserve Boundary

Path

(E:\M

appin

g\Burn

ett O

il in B

ig Cy

press

Pres

erve\M

aps\F

ig 2 F

ocus

Area

s.mxd

) By:

AQ D

ate: 1

0/4/20

18

Figure 2 - Florida Panther Focus AreasNobles Grade 3-D Seismic Survey (Burnett Oil Co., Inc.)

Natural Resources Defense CouncilBig Cypress National Preserve, Florida

.0 15Miles

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servie

LegendApprox. Phase I Seismic Survey BoundaryPrimary ZoneSecondary ZoneDispersal ZonePrimary Dispersal/Expansion Area

Appendix A Photo Documentation of Seisimic Survey Paths

Photo Credit: Inspection Team, April 26, 2018

Photo 1: Five vibroseis vehicles staged in a cypress strand wetland.

Photo 2: Cypress tree cut down to make way for vibroseis trucks and rutting from tires.

Appendix A Photo Documentation of Seisimic Survey Paths

Photo Credit: Inspection Team, April 26, 2018

Photo 3: Dwarf cypress measuring 4.3 inches dbh and estimated to be 150-200 years old which was cut

down along a survey path.

Photo 4: Dwarf cypress stump measuring 40 inches (3.3 feet) in diameter, estimated to be > 330 years

old, which was removed from a survey path.